The Guardian has reported this morning that:
The government is “sleepwalking” into a post-Brexit future of insecure, unsafe and increasingly expensive food supplies, and has little idea how it will replace decades of EU regulation on the issue, a report by influential academics has said.
One of the academics in question is Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City, University of London. Tim is both a friend and colleague of mine. It is only a few weeks ago that we were considering the forecast of the British Retail Consortium on Brexit. That says:
The weighted average tariff, if the UK were to default to WTO tariffs on UK food imports from the EU, would be 22 per cent. Such a scenario would put upward pressure on consumer food prices.
I think the BRC were inclined to understatement there.
I stress that this is a long way from being the only risk Tim and his colleagues refer to in their report. But if you want to bring the issue home it's a good one to start with.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I was talking about the risks of Brexit this morning with my better half, who, being Dutch sees it from the ‘other side’. She noted that continental media has been commenting that the British print media appear to finally be waking up to the realities of what Brexit will entail.
I said that I think that the challenges posed by Brexit are so great, we haven’t really faced anything like it since the outbreak of war in 1939. If you think of the scale of the task that needs to be addressed then I think it’s a fair comparison. Instead of mobilising an army and all it’s support infrastructure we will have to totally rebuild the civil service. Whole departments will need to be created from scratch. This will take time and money. It is doable but it won’t be easy and the eventual benefit is questionable at best. We will be worse off in many ways and it will have come at a price of a huge amount of hassle, cost, and misery, at a time when we could be leading the charge against climate change.
Precisely
It’s a war effort against someone who is not much of an enemy when the real threats are being ignored
…and remember the Labour Party was a major part of the ‘war effort’, so such effect that they won the 1945 landslide.
Tories being ‘small state’ just don’t seem capable of running an effective government. It never ceases to amaze me that they achieve power.
In cash terms the increase is about the same as the farm subsidies paid from British taxes to owners of foreign farm land.
So not a bad outcome, and the tariff income goes to the UK Treasury and they can then decide what to spend it on.
Unless extra income for the UK Treasury frightens you?
And how are families meant to pay?
As you said in answer to ‘Benzo’, Richard; precisely!
What we have here is yet another example of a Brexiteer quite happy for the lives of many people in this country to become materially worse by a substantial amount just as long as Brexit goes ahead. But then I dare say ‘Charles Manson Still Lives’ (a deliberately offensive choice of name which no doubt also reflects the character of the individual concerned) is of suitable means to not have to bother about being short of money. Which pretty much sums up most of those who continue to promote the hard Brexit guff in the government: single minded arseholes who couldn’t give a f— about others. In short, libertarian nutjobs.
That’s about as close as it comes to deletion
Even if I do understand the sentiment
I did wonder whether to accept the original comment
Which ever way you look at it, this has got to be the one of the most embarrassing episodes in UK political history. Ever.
Wouldn’t this stimulate domestic food production for domestic consumption and isn’t this additional tax collected by the UK government that could be used for anything the UK Government wants, including assisting those struggling with the price of food?
We’re not good at oranges. Or grapes in quantity. Let alone olives.
How do you suggest food assistance is targeted?
And even if we were we don’t have the climate – even with the massive use of poly-tunnels – to grow a range of vegetables and fruit that we now take as being available all year round (e.g. courgettes, green beans, tomatoes, etc).
1. I can’t see from the link what the UK would do with the tariff funds it receives from the tariffs it imposes on imported food. It wouldn’t vanish – it would be available for the UK to put back into the economy as normal government spending.
2. I can’t see from the link what the impact of any tariffs would be on domestic production. It is difficult to believe there would be no reaction from producers in terms of import-replacement activity. Why is that necessarily a bad thing, from the perspective of food security?
3. As I understand it (and open to be corrected), imposition of WTO tariffs is at the discretion of the importing country. There would be nothing OBLIGING the UK to charge tariffs. It would be entirely in the UK’s hands to choose not to impose tariffs.
A. This is tax, but tax does not pay for services. It would also be deeply regressive.
B. Some food substitutes are very hard e.g. oranges abs olives.
C. In theory. But very unlikely unless we have no deal at all with EU states.
“B. Some food substitutes are very hard e.g. oranges abs olives.”
How will foreign grape, olive and orange producers react when they lose, or struggle to sell into, the UK market?
Will they persuade existing EU citizens to consume more instead? If so, how?
Will they reduce production?
Will they go bust?
Or will they reduce their export prices to the UK in order to maintain their markets?
Genuine question!
I do not know
The WW2 analogy is appropriate. However the vast majority of the German effort of the 2nd world war was on the Eastern Front against the Russians. Russia is unlikely to come to the UK’s rescue this time. Many analysts believe that even without D-day Germany would have been defeated by the Russians and Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, though it would have taken a few years longer. Also there was a bit of help from the US! They say the victors get to write history and there is the belief in the UK that Britain almost single-handedly defeated Nazi Germany, but not shared by the Americans or Eastern Europeans.
You might be charged with treason by The Mail Sean
He might, Richard, but such action would no doubt be a feature of a Daily Mail variant of post Brexit Britain given that paper has always had a soft spot for totalitarian dictators.
it took the USA, USSR and the British Commonwealth to prevail. If we had surrendered or signed a deal with Hitler after Dunkirk, the Germans would have only been fighting on one front with no bombing to disrupt production or diversion of aircraft to defend the Reich. Also we and the Americans supplied the Soviets with modern production machinery, trucks and aluminium and other raw materials.
The lesson is that the UK co-operated closely with the US and co-ordinated domestic production whereas the Germans had competing programmes (often potentially huge advances like the V2) but concealed from each other.
My uncle on the Baltic convoys in WW2 would not have taken the view that Russia came to Britain’s rescue, rather the reverse. In any case Germany attacked Russia. As for D Day Stalin was adamant that an Allied invasion of Europe was essential if Germany was to be defeated. Also we have forgotten that shortly after Normandy there were landings in the South, notably US Marines at St. Tropez. The vehicle tracks were still on the beach in the 1970’s.
My grandfather served on HMS Sheffield on the Arctic convoys
And died as a result so I never had the chance to ask him
Indeed. There was tremendous bravery on the arctic convoys and I had not intended to minimise Britain’s effort in WW2 in any way. The larger point I was making is that Britain was not alone then but will be very isolated after Brexit; even Trump seems lukewarm about it now. Maybe the darkest hour comes before the dawn and Davis might pull a rabbit out of his hat (MI6 style cloaked briefcase).
I was not questioning you Sean
Well, until you thought Davis had the ability to achieve his goals!
When the UK joined the EEC the price of many foods increased overnight – esp IIRC dairy produce.
There was also the imposition of VAT – an EEC imposed sales tax which which also appeared overnight and increased the cost of most non-food goods and services by 10%.
I presume the increase in the cost of some foodstuffs were as a result of tariffs imposed on imports from the Commonwealth, chiefly Aus and NZ, and the Cape, as well as the costs inherent in funding the CAP.
Can these extra costs relating to imported foods not be unwound post-Brexit?
And, as an EEC/EC/EU imposed regressive tax, I would also have thought that certainly the abolition of VAT, post-Brexit, would be an economically stimulating and popular move?
If we ever negotiate trade deals…..
But abolish VAT? How? What would you replace it with? Serious question?
Replace it with a LVT and a wealth tax of course! ; )
And what replaces council tax?
Wealth tax is not going to replace much….
As local authorities are currency users not currency issuers, the Council Tax is not really a *tax* as such – it’s more akin to a service charge.
Prices increased by 10% in 1973, as a result of the imposition of VAT?
Did they go down by 25% first, when purchase tax was abolished?
Purchase tax was imposed on wholesale prices, I believe, and the rate varied according to how ‘luxurious’ the goods were deemed to be – meaning that it presumably was more likely to be levied at higher rates on the wealthy (a short-lived VAT experiment also conducted mildly by the Callaghan Govt with its 8% and 12% rates)
It’s before my time TBH, and surprisingly hard to find much detail from a quick web search.
But I do remember my father being quite enraged by VAT when it arrived – and we were certainly not well off!
Part of the reason for the stupidity of our VAT zero rate for food derives from the complexity of purchase tax, and the division between “luxurious” items that were subject to purchase tax, such as chocolate covered biscuits, and “staples” that were not, such as chocolate covered cake.
This post was about food, but the purchase tax applied to all manner of non-food items. That said, VAT has a wider base with fewer exceptions, and applying to services as well as goods. But food is often cheaper in EU countries where VAT is applied across the board, without zero rating.
Would it be at all surprising in a period of relatively high inflation for shopkeepers to shake their heads and blame the new tax for price increases, when the abolition of the old tax meant that in many cases the tax rate actually went down?
But what has the total price effect been in the 40+ years that the UK has been in the various forms of what is now the EU?
I think you’ll find after the initial jolt you mentioned (lest we forget the global recession that blighted the 1970s), all member states have benefitted from EU membership through price stability and production economies of scale.
It took a while and a concerted mass-effort, so the immediate post-Brexit future seems nothing short of dystopian in my humble one.
“Brexit to increase cost of food imports from the EU by 22%”
Only if the UK government choses to make imports more expensive. The UK government is the sole entity that has the sovereign power to make imports more expensive than they would be at a market price.
As I have already noted, only true if we do no trade deals at all
Err, yes, Jonathan, but if we don’t have a deal and our producers have to pay tariffs to export their product to the continent, and we allow EU nations to import their food tariff free, how do you see that being received? It’s a political non-starter that the brexiteers and their media backers will go nuts over.
Our exporters don’t pay the tariffs, foreign consumers do.
If the UK retaliated to an EU imposition of import tariffs on UK exports, UK consumers would then effectively pay the tariffs on imported goods from the EU.
However, unlike the EU, the UK gov could use the money from import tariffs to subsidise UK exports.
Yes – you’re right of course but my point stands. It will be a political minefield
Aren’t WTO rates the maximum rates? Presumably we could choose not to impose any tariffs on imports from the EU? If so what’s the issue?
See comments already made
I’ve been following the comments, and to me it isn’t clear. Once out of the EU are those 22% average tariffs on imports from the EU compulsory, or is it one of those ‘nice problems to have’ where the UK can set any rate it likes from nil up to the maximum?
If we have no agreements with other states then we can chose what we like
But once we have agreements they may well have opinions
And we may need to respect them
I had to laugh at Hammond at the weekend talking about how public sector pay is still above private sector pay.
My local authority has tried to recruit a new architect and valuation surveyor and no-one has shown any interest. Why? Because the wages are too low. ‘Simple as that. And those that remain in the LA are increasingly opting out of the sector and going into the private sector where pay seems more attractive.
As prices rise what will happen to my LA and to other public sector services as wages continue to not keep up with rising prices and other BREXIT produced problems.
It just seems like a deliberate and intentional policy to make the public sector untenable in my view.
I’d say Hammond was flat out lying but to be properly fair it’s more a deliberately false and misleading comparison based on flawed data analysis..
It’s impossible to make direct comparisons between average public/private sector, you have to compare equivalent roles and responsibilities. But that analysis wouldn’t back up Sideshow (sic) Phil’s soundbite.
And yet the ONS has done exactly that, comparing like for like jobs and confirming that, on average, public sector salaries are higher than the equivalent private sector roles.
And that’s before benefits such as defined benefit pensions are taken into account, which significantly increases the gap.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2014-03-10
Looks like you might need to reconsider your opinions!
Oh really Bruce?
* After further adjusting for the different organisation sizes between the public and private sector, in April 2013 it is estimated that on average the pay of the public sector was between 1.3% and 2.4% lower than the private sector.
Looks like I’m not the only one who needs to reconsider.
Brexit can help here. There are many architects in China and Hong Kong that might be interested. After we leave, your LA should in theory find it easier to sponsor one on a work permit. Until then you have to pitch the position in the EEA first, then try and sponsor an immigrant when that fails.
They could try now
We have complete control of our own non EU migration at present
But remember the whole point is to crash it to less than 100,000 pa in total
So Brexit will not help
From the expatica.com website
“There are different types of visa to come and work in the UK, depending on your qualifications, area of work, your skills, talents and age; each visa has different conditions and may require you to pass a points-based assessment. For example, you may have to be a graduate, have been already offered a job in the UK which cannot be filled by someone else from the EU/EEA/Switzerland, have a licenced sponsor” . . .
So after Brexit it WILL be easier to hire engineering talent from anywhere in the world.
And we know all about that net migration target – no-one takes it seriously. All the 10 non-EU territories in N&W Europe have high or higher migration levels compared to the UK. If you expect the UK to be different when exit is complete, then check a mirror to ensure you still have a reflection.
Imv, of course.
If Brexit is about controlling migration – and as far as i can see it has no other reason – you have to be wrong
If it is not about controlling migration then why are we doing it?
So we continue to parasite our way in the world..
Other countries educate or train the engineers/doctors/nurses, we import their educated/trained citizens to fill the posts that our system can not, or will not fill?
Why am I not surprised…
However, after the well-publicised massive increase in racism after the UK decided that being nice was so not us, would the same amount want to come here.
EU nursing applications to come to the UK have fallen dramatically.
Nurses and doctors here already are making plans to depart.
The U.K. response?
Move further to filch others doctors!
Everyone with the mental capacity to walk and chew gum simultaneously knew well before the referendum that Brexit would be economically damaging for the 28 as a whole and that since the UK unilaterally caused it, the other 27 would be reluctant to share the pain. Hammond is quite wrong in saying that no-one voted to get poorer. Yes they did and all in pursuit of this mantra about “taking back control”.
I’m not sure where this control freakery comes from but May has clearly distilled it down to simply ensuring that the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction in the UK. That is the sole objective and no amount of pain is too much to endure in order to achieve it.
Sounds weird but nothing like a weird as saying that approx. 17m votes out of a population of approx. 65m constitutes a “compelling democratic imperative”.
Getting rid of May might be necessary to break the logjam
Indeed the obsession with the ECJ is bordering on mania or should I say Maynia?
Am I the only person that’s fed up with the endless negativity concerning Brexit.
Let’s be honest.
No one really knows what s going to happen
Any discussion is pure speculation based on assumptions about what may happen
Here’s an idea
Let pretend it really is like WW2 and ALL get behind Brexit and make it a sucess
By all means shoot any detractors
It was easy to fight WW2. Opposing fascism was pretty unifying but many of us happen to think leaving the EU is a massive mistake and I, for one, see no reason why I should support a crass idea that was fraudulently put to to British electorate.
If there was more realism re Brexit I might be more sympathetic. In addition to thinking Brexit is an act of fraudulent mis-selling as John Bruton (former Irish PM says) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/01/brexit-britain-europe-eu-john-bruton
“It is important for UK negotiators to remind themselves, every day, that Brexit is a British initiative. Because it is the initiator, the chief responsibility for making Brexit work for the 27 remaining EU countries rests with Britain. If Brexit damages the rest of Europe, Britain has a primary responsibility to find a way to mitigate that damage.”
If you can start addressing or even acknowledge this question then I might be more sympathetic. (I’m an Irish citizen living in the UK since 1981).
Gareth, no.
It’s a car crash and I have no intention of cheering it as it happens. I’d rather call out the liars and charlatans who brought it about. Every day.
It most certainly is not about patriotism.
Wrong Gareth, “any discussion is pure speculation based on assumptions about what may happen” shows that, in typical Brexiteer fashion, you are talking nonsense.
The negative consequences of Brexit are already becoming apparent in many areas, but let’s take just one. When the CEO of the UK Atomic Energy Authority warns at the weekend, of the severe negative effects on the UK’s nuclear industry of leaving Euratom, including the UK being left out of world leading research into nuclear fusion, anyone with half a brain cell can see this is NOT pure speculation.
Or perhaps you think you know more about the British nuclear industry than the bloke who leads it?
And your last comment is absolutely typical of the moronic Brexit cultist world view, that somehow Brexit will work if only people believe it enough, and those of us who oppose you should be shot. That, matey, is exactly how the Nazis behaved and thought. And that didn’t work out too well did it?
I can tell you that in the university sector the impact is already also very apparent, serious and adverse
And dammit, I will say so because we’re a major exporter being seriously harmed by this
So, another massive problem that Brexit will cause, which will, naturally, most affect many of those who voted for it. Not that the lying, deluded, self indulgent, arrogant riff raff behind the Leave campaign will care a jot.
Re the WW2 analogy, what are the similarities and differences between now and then?
Both were/are a huge problem, which caused/will cause a lot of suffering, and huge sacrifices to be made. Both led to/will lead to a weakened Britain. WW2 hastened the end of the Empire, Brexit will lead us to being a much poorer, nastier country. The Axis powers in WW2 were run by nationalist fanatics who, as the tide of war turned against them, insisted, against all the evidence, that the war could still be won, and that to believe otherwise was treachery. They were quite prepared to take their own countrymen down with them. The Brexit cultists are no better.
That’s the similarities. Now the differences. WW2 happened to the UK; Brexit arises from within. Then, we had a government composed of people like Attlee, Bevan, Churchill, Beveridge. Now……….!!!!!!!!!
Then, the industry of the USA and manpower of the USSR saved us; let’s not kid ourselves, we didn’t win WW2, we were on the winning side – a very different thing. Now………there’s nobody to bail us out, we’ll presumably whore ourselves out to God knows who in our attempts to replace the loss of national income that came from being in the EU.
If living costs do rise sharply then it’s inevitable that either; employers (public and private) have to increase pay, or there’s going to be significant social unrest. That unrest will lead either to a Labour government or a populist right wing government blaming everything terrorists, benefits claimants, foreigners and immigrants.
So the elite have to decide between accepting a decline in income share or resorting to fascism to deflect an angry but ignorant public.
@ Adam Sawyer
That’s a no- brainer: the 1% had already decided they wanted a neo-fascist and neo-feudal state well before BREXIT offered them a decisive chance to achieve rgst objective – the former (neo-fascist), when their chosen Party, the Tories, saw Labour win a 60+ seat majority on 21% of the total electorate in 2005.
The latter – a neo-feudal state – is of much older provenance, as neo-feudalism was, I have long argued, the unstated game-plan of the Thatcherite Tory Party, where Phase 1 was the destruction of any centres of possible working class solidarity and opposition, such as Trade Unions and effective local Government and the security of Council housing, under Thatcher, and Phase 2 the breaking up of all and any socially delivered services, such as education and health, under Cameron.
In a word, the 1%, the new Baronage, who were promised new feudal mastery over the 99%, with that Baronage having ALL the rights (including exemption from ALL taxation) and NONE of the duties, while the new serfs would have ALL the duties and NONE of the rights (hence the desire to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Repeal the Human Rights Act of 1998) – they will simply retreat to their gated communities, protected by their private, armed, security forces, and tough it out, leaving the rest of society to descend in “Blade Runner” anarchy.
I fear that any opportunity for farmers will be lost during Brexit. Farmers that are making a loss might have a chance at making it into the black, but I expect that we’ll make a trade deal with the US that’ll still bring food into the country that will undercut them. Perhaps worse, it’ll be full of chemicals, hormones and preservatives that are illegal in the EU but OK by the FDA.
It’ll take years for government to catch up and learn how to approach this again.
I think your fear of the US deal wholly justified
@John Stone
How much is the DB pension worth?!